get_profile

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the whole burden. It usefully discloses that values are resolved with inheritance applied (so the agent knows it gets effective, not literal, settings) and explains the exact-vs-substring lookup behavior. It says nothing about error behavior for unknown vendors/profiles, permissions, or the shape of the returned settings, leaving meaningful gaps for a read tool with five parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then parameter semantics, then the workflow cue. Every clause carries information; the parenthetical examples and kind enumeration are compact and purposeful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers selection semantics well but leaves two parameters unspecified and never hints at the return value's structure (a mapping of setting key to resolved value) or what happens when a profile name is wrong. Adequate to call correctly in the happy path, incomplete for edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains 'keys' as exact settings, 'query' as a substring filter with concrete examples ('speed', 'support', 'temperature'), and supplies the enum values for 'kind' that the schema lacks. 'vendor' and 'name' are left entirely unexplained, which keeps this from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('get_profile' → 'All resolved settings of one profile') and adds the crucial qualifier that inheritance is already applied, which tells the agent the difference between raw and effective values. The 'kind: machine | process | filament' enumeration in prose further narrows scope, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling list_profiles, so the agent must infer that distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit workflow instruction — 'Use it before overriding settings in slice_model' — which tells the agent both the trigger and the downstream action. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or guidance about when list_profiles is the better call, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.